IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
C.P.No.D- 355 of 2020.
A/wC.P.Nos.D- 467, 1246
& 1380 of 2020.
C.P.Nos.D- 111 of 2021.
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
Before:
Mr.JusticeNazar
Akbar
Mr.Justice
Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
-
Petitioners:
1. Muneer
Ahmed Soomro
&
others
In C.P.No.D-355/2020. Through Mr.Zahid Hussain
Soomro,
Advocate.
2. Nisar Ahmed Sodhar
In C.P.D – 467/2020. Through Mr.Ashok Kumar Jamba,
Advocate.
3. WaseemIqbalShaikh
&
another
In C.P.No.D-
1246/2020 ThroughMr.Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro,
Advocate.
4. Hassan
Ali Magsi
In
C.P.No.D-1380/2020 Through Mr.AliRaza Balouch,
Advocate,.
3. Rafiq Ahmed Rajper
In
C.P.No.D-111/2021 ThroughMr.Bashir Ahmed
Samejo, Advocate.
Respondents.
The
Director General NAB
& another. Through
Mr.MuhammadZubair Malik
Special Prosecutor.
Date
of Hearing 17th March, 2021.
O R D E R.
NAZAR
AKBAR, J- By this common order, we intend
to dispose of the above captioned constitutional petitions filed by the
petitioners Muneer Ahmed, Abdul Rahim,
Sheraz Ali, Nisar Ahmed Sodhar, WaseemIqbalShaikh&
Hassan Ali Magsi, seeking pre-arrest bail in
Reference No.18 of 2020 while petitionerRafique Ahmed
Rajper is seeking post arrest bail in same reference,
pending adjudication before the Accountability Court at Sukkur.
2. It is alleged that the petitioners/accused
No.7 & 8 aided, assisted and abated petitioner No.1 to 6/ Incharge of PRC Kamber, Warah and Nasirabad and
misappropriated the Government wheat stock in connivance with them by misusing
their authority, which has caused loss to Government exchequer to the tune of
Rs.386,877,517/- and after completing the investigation,
the aforementioned reference was filed against the petitioners/accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly
contended that the petitioners have been implicated in this case by the NAB
authorities with malafide intention and ulterior motives;
that no such loss has been caused to the Government exchequer by the
petitioners. Learned counsel for the
petitioners after arguing the matter at some length, submitted that though the
allegations leveled against the petitioners in the reference are false but inspiteof that they are ready to deposit an amount
equivalent to the extent of loss allegedly caused by them to Government
exchequer.
4. Learned Special Prosecutor NAB assisted by
I.O has objected to the acceptance of such proposal even if the entire amount
is secured. He has contended that in one of the cases the Honourable
Court has disapproved this kind of concession at the bail stage. He has placed
on record the statement showing individual liability of each petitioner, which
is taken on record.
5. We have heard arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The material available on record, reveals
that the documentary evidence has already been collected by the Investigating
Officer and there is no apprehension of tampering with the evidence as all the
P.Ws are official witnesses. The reference has already been filed against the
petitioners before the Accountability Court at Sukkur, where in the case the
charge has been framed and some of the PWs have already been examined by the
trial Court. The petitioners are
regularly attending this Court as well as trial Court and did not misuse the
concession of interim pre-arrest bail extended to them. The petitioners are
voluntarily ready to deposit the liability amount as leveled against each one
of them in the impugned Reference No.18 of 2019.The Honourable
Supreme Court also granted bail to an accused on similar terms as discussed
above.
7. The
contention of learned counsel for the NAB that the Honourable
Supreme Court in the case of Rai Mohammad Khan
reported in 2017 SCMR 1152 has not
approved this proposition has been rebutted by learned counsel for the
petitioners by placing reliance on two unreported judgments of Honourable Supreme Court passed viz
(1) C.P.No. 2300 of 2018 & (2)
C.P.No.1175 of 2020. In Civil Petition No.1175-K/2020 and the relevant portion of the order dated
26.11.2020 is reproduced as under:-
“We have observed that bulk of
accused nominated in the reference are enlarged on bail either due to
acceptance of plea bargain or had deposited their incurred liability with the
trial court. Otherwise we have been informed that as per order of
Accountability Court, Sukkur dated 27.07.2020 a letter bearing No.ABL/JCD/2(20) dated 27.07.2020 from Allied Bank Limited Jacobabad
Branch was received to the trial court
wherein it is submitted that DD bearing No.BBB1351295 dated 20.07.2020
amounting to Rs.34,72,100/- is genuine and the entry of the same has been made
in the register in the name of trial court. It is noticed that the pre-arrest bail of co-accused Mujeeb-ur-Rehman
has been confirmed on deposit of
pay-order in civil petition No.277-K/2020 by this Court vide order dated
15.07.2020. The petitioner has already deposited his individual liability of
Rs.34,72,100/- before the learned trial court and
leave this case has already been granted on 07.08.2020 at Karachi Branch
Registry of this Court, hence, in the interest of safe administration of
criminal justice, the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing
bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/= with two sureties each in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the learned trail court”.
8.
Similar view was taken by Honourable
Supreme Court in judgment in the case of Mumtaz Ali v
The State through Chairman NAB in C.P.No.1149-K of 2018. This judgement is reproduced below:-
“Mr.Muhammad
Ashraf Kazi Senior Advocate
Supreme Court, submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit with
the trial Court the entire amount of his liability so far determined by the
prosecution.
Syed Amjad Ali Shah learned DPG
NAB present in Court waives the notice and submits that in view of the case of Shamraiz Khan v The State (2000 SCMR 157) he would have no
objection for the grant of a bail to the petitioner subject to his depositing
the entire amount of his liability in this case being Rs.61,79,238/-
(Rupees Sixty One Lac, Seventy Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Thirty Eight) with
the Additional Registrar of this Court at Brach Registry Karachi.
In
these circumstances, this petition is converted into an appeal and allowed, the
petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his depositing with the Additional
Registrar of this Court the above amount”.
9. These
judgments are subsequent in time and passed by three members
bench of Honourable Supreme Court whereas the
reliance placed by learned counsel for NAB on the case reported in 2017 SCMR
1152 was earlier in time and the judgment is delivered by two member bench.
10. In view of above, the interim pre-arrest
bail already granted to petitioners Muneer Ahmed
Bhutto, Abdul RaheemSoomroSheraz Ali, Nisar Ahmed Sodhar, WaseemIqbalShaikh, Nadir Ali and Hassan Ali Magsi is hereby confirmed subject to depositing entire
amounts through pay orders equivalent to their
respective individual liabilities that is Rs.1,79,26,627/-,
Rs.7,99,43,888/-, Rs.5,30,83,528/-, Rs.10,53,19,894/-, Rs.72,70,163/-,
Rs.72,70,163/-, and Rs.7,73,75,503/- as mentioned in the above Reference
within a period of 15 days and P.R Bonds
in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Failure whereof,
the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the aforementioned petitioners shall
stand recalled on expiry of 15 days from today and the petitioners will be
taken into custody and remanded to jail till deposit of the above amounts.
Similarly, petitioner Rafique Ahmed Rajperis admitted to post arrest bail subject to depositing
amount of Rs.38,687,752/- through pay orders equivalent to his individual
liability as mentioned in the above Reference and P.R Bond in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
11. The observations made hereinabove are
tentative in nature and will not influence the learned trial Court while
deciding the reference on merits.
12. The aforementioned petitions are disposed of
in above terms.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Akber.
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
C.P.No.D- 3222 of 2016.
A/wC.P.No.D- 4409 of
2016.
C.P.Nos.D- 1657, 1660, 1661, 1697, 1698, 1743,
1744 of 2019.
C.P.Nos.D – 119,
291 and 448 of 2020.
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
1.For hearing of CMA 8461/2016.
2.For hearing of
main case.
16.03.2021.
M/s.Qurban Ali Malano, Amanullah G. Malik, Shahid Ali K. Memon and Mumtaz Ali JehangirLashari
Advocates for petitioners.
Mr.MuhammadZubair Malik SP.NAB.
-
Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties. For the
reasons to be recorded later on, interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier to the
Petitioners in C.P.No.D- 3222 & 4409 of 2016, C.P.Nos.D - 1657,
1660, 1661, 1697, 1698, 1743& 1744 of 2019&C.P.No.D – 119 of 2020, are
hereby confirmed subject to the deposit of amount equivalent to their respective liability determined by
the NAB in Reference No.16 of 2019 through pay orders within 15 days, whereas
the Petitioners namely Sarfaraz Ali Ghanghro in C.P.No.D 291 of 2020
and Ghulam Mustafa Lashari
in C.P.No.D- 448 of 2020 who are behind the bar, are
admitted to bail may be released forthwith subject to depositing an amount of Rs.25,744/- (Rs.Twenty
Five Thousand, Seven Hundred Fourty Four) and Rs.4,309,338/-
(Rs.Fourty Three Lac, Nine Thousand, Three Hundred Thirty
Eight) through pay order(s) to the
satisfaction of the trial Court.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Akber.